In a letter released Thursday by Acting Secretary of the Air Force Peter Teets to Congresswoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the Air Force revealed that it will not take administrative action against anyone as regards confirmed and repeated sexual assault at the Air Force Academy, RAW STORY has learned.

"The Acting Secretary of the Air Force has reviewed the Department of Defense Inspector General's (DoD/IG's) report and the Fowler report on sexual assault problems at the AF Academy," Teets wrote. "After considering all the facts and weighing all the interests at stake, the Acting Secretary found that no administrative action is warranted against those officers identified in those reports as bearing some responsibility for Academy's sexual assault problems."

"The Acting Secretary gave significant weight to their uniformly excellent and lengthy service and to the fact they were not intentionally or willfully derelict in their duties," Teets added. "He also found that any mistakes or misjudgments some of them may have made are mitigated by the complexity of the issues faced, the necessity of policy tradeoffs and compromises, and the difficulty of measuring program effectiveness."

Note: "confirmed and repeated sexual assault" -- the matters of fact are not in question. Some men committed repeated sexual assults, and now are going to receive no administrative action. So....go ahead and rape and harass women as long as you fulfill your duties. Physical assault (sexual or otherwise) is not important enough in the face of "policy tradeoffs."

"What the Pentagon clearly doesn't want to discuss, and what all Americans should know, is that women are being sexually assaulted on an ongoing basis in the military and at our nation's military academies by their colleagues," Slaughter continued. "Is this the best we can do for young Americans who put their lives on the line to protect our freedom?"

Leniency towards sexual assault in the military has long been viewed as standard practice.

A November 2003 article in The Denver Post noted that twice as many accused Army sex offenders were doled out administrative punishment as were court-martialed.

"In the civilian world, four of every five people arrested for rape are prosecuted," the Post noted. "Nearly 5,000 accused sex offenders in the military, including rapists, have avoided prosecution, and the possibility of prison time, since 1992, according to Army records."

Women can't win. If we don't step up to fight, then we don't deserve equality. So we step up to fight, without complaint, and we don't deserve equal protection under the law -- nor, apparently, any sort of concept of human dignity or honor.

Imagine what the military's response would be if it were men being sexually assaulted by other men. "Oh, that would be totally different! That's why we cannot have gays in the military!" they say.

So is this non-response to sexual misconduct and physical assault within their own institutions a passive-aggressive way to drive women out of the military?

Jessica Lynch was the victim of feminist zealots who have been pushing for deployment of women in dangerous combat areas

and has a long list of articles that warn of the dangers of "colocation," complain that women in the ranks are hurting promotion chances for men, women are making "boot camp into summer camp," women in the military are against Christian teachings, women who choose motherhood over military have greater worth....you get the idea -- with sites like that, and people believing that tripe, it's clearly a lonely uphill battle for any woman who chooses to serve her country without employing her womb.

You get a different perspective, however, from The Minerva Center, whose "Nonprofit Educational Foundation Supporting Study of Women in War & Women and the Military" actually deigns to treat the subject of women in the military without Christian and male chauvinist dogma. In their FAQ, they tell of Molly Pitcher:

Molly Pitcher is the name of a legendary figure of the American Revolution. She is associated with the Battle of Monmouth and since 1876 has been identified with a woman veteran of the war, Mary Ludwig Hays McCauley, who lived in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. As part of the centenary events of that year, an unmarked grave believed to be hers was opened and the remains were reburied with honors under a plaque declaring her to have been the real embodiment of the famous Molly Pitcher.

The central theme of the Molly Pitcher story is of a woman whose husband was wounded or killed while serving at an artillery piece at the Battle of Monmouth. She took his place to the admiration of the other soldiers who admired her courage and devotion to her husband....

The real woman, Mary Ludwig Hays McCauley was awarded a pension by the State of Pennsylvania in1822 "for services rendered" during the war -- this was more than the usual widow's pension which was awarded to soldiers' wives who marched with the army. So one assumes she did something special. But when she died there was no mention of a cannon or the Battle of Monmouth in her obituary. Historical sources do confirm that at least two women fought in the Battle of Monmouth -- one was at an artillery position and the other was in the infantry line. There is no evidence linking either of them to McCauley.

There is another woman veteran of the Revolution who received a pension from the Continental Congress for serving at an artillery piece during the Battle of Fort Washington. Her name was Margaret Corbin, and she is now buried at West Point. Some people believe she should be considered the "real" Molly Pitcher, but few people knew about her until long after the Molly Pitcher story was known to every school child, so she cannot have been its inspiration.

And yet today, more than 200 years after the conclusion of the Revolutionary War, women are still harrassed, raped, assaulted by their own comrades -- with tacit sanction by the military. Apparently Duty, Honor, Country has no room for decency, responsibility or a code of conduct that doesn't wink and say, "Boys will be boys."

...Its modern use originated in the civil rights movement, which sought political empowerment for its followers. The word was then taken up by the women's movement, and its appeal has not flagged. Since people of all political persuasions have a need for a word that makes their constituents feel that they are or are about to become more in control of their destinies, empower has been adopted by conservatives as well as social reformers. It has even migrated out of the political arena into other fields. Â·The Usage Panel has some misgivings about this recent broadening of usage. For the Panelists, the acceptability of the verb empower depends on the context. Eighty percent approve of the example We want to empower ordinary citizens.

Does that make enough sense now? (One of these days I'm going to pull some Second Wave Feminism journals off the shelf and really get into this, but not today.)

Anyway, Aaron took issue with my analysis of Harvard president Summers' remarks. He didn't do the favor of explaining why or how he disagreed, but he did, and took issue with feminist objections:

Guys and girls are different, what blasphemy! Oh wait, we are different. Weâ€™ve got different body structures, different genes, different hardware â€œdownstairs", different things on our torso, different traditions and roles, and more Iâ€™m sure. Iâ€™m not saying that I agree with the comments made by Summers, but as said above I do think that dismissing things simply because they rub you the wrong way is not prudent.

Of course I would say that just because you like what Summers says, it's no reason to think that he actually makes sense.

What really boggles my mind is why men so often place themselves as arbiters of what is and isn't appropriate feminist thought.

Granted some of the criticisms being leveled (in the DailyKos thread and elsewhere) are legitimate: Harvard is in many ways a â€œgood old boys club", and it would be interesting to have a female president in many ways. But the conclusion - that this is cause for Summerâ€™s ouster and that there should be a female president simply for the sake of having a female president - completely miss the mark. Progress is achieved, not through unilateralism, but through the very dialogue provoked by people like Summers.

Actually, I believe progress is achieved when something happens. I have no idea how playing word games with Summers is going to lead to any "progress" at Harvard. Progress is achieved when achievements progress -- and in the face of what is unquestionably appalling achievement in integrating the faculty ranks, it serves nobody to start going on half-cocked about bio-determinist "explanations", especially when so many studies point to just the opposite.

But Aaron is right: Summers has every right to be a horse's ass. And if the Harvard pubas like having him around -- I'm sure his chauvinism appeals to big money right wingers -- that's none of my business. I'm not even an alum.

But I do make it my business to respond to the persistent denials and apologies and delusions that come from the male privilege-esconced end of society, because in the absence of objection, such behavior continues unexamined and unquestioned. And when the president of what is often regarded as the premiere educational institution in the land opens his mouth and inserts his foot, I feel no shame in rebutting. In fact, I take exception to assertions that I should feel any shame about it.

You do not make racist and sexist remarks in a professional forum and then back up and say, "hey, free inquiry, exchange of ideas, blah fucking blah." You do not insult people and then play innocent dumb guy. You do not stand up, white man in charge of major cultural institution, and demonstrate your ignorance and prejudice and then be shocked when people call you on it. You do not pretend that remarks that justify racism and sexism are value-neutral. You do not play the "reverse racism" card or the "those feminazis want to suppress free discussion" card when you are in the middle of demonstrating that you, yourself, are a bigot. And you do not defend bigots by attacking people who refuse to listen to bigotry pretending to be substantive discussion.

...that captures the sentiment a lot of us women feel about the same old party line coming from moguls of the patriarchy and their defenders and apologists.

Then again, I'm probably being unfair to Aaron. He's nothing like the horses asses and raging bulls that litter the landscape, like the goombas and ninnies who pop up periodically to wonder why women bloggers aren't more popular, or the fuckwits who wield misogyny like a phallic sword -- no doubt to make up for inadequacies in the real world.

And it's not so much a matter of a few bad apples, but the whole culture. Just look at how the public went ape shit over Martha Stewart's downfall, while finding all sorts of excuses for Kobe Bryant. Look at how rare it is to see women in public office or holding positions in the corporatocracy.

And yet the men shake their heads. Feminism is outdated. Feminism is unreasonable. Feminism means man-hating. Women got the right to vote ages ago, so what's the big deal? Appeal denied.

Pro-feminist men are in solidarity with their sisters in the feminist movement. As such, they encourage women to challenge themselves, to better themselves, to become stronger, more empowered and more effective human beings. But pro-feminist men understand that ultimately, the work of transforming women is women's work. Women need to mentor and guide other women. And men need to mentor and guide other men. We are at our most effective when we are ministering to the unique needs of our own sex. And before we can mentor and guide other men effectively, we have to accept responsibility for our own actions and our own lives.

...it just seems so sensible, and I'm left wondering all the more why so many other men are such shmucks.

What is it that drives men to deny that misogyny exists? What is it that makes them dismiss women's opinions? What is it that gives them the sense of entitlement to sit in judgment of women, and actually complain when women protest? Is it fear of impotence? Is it insecurity? Why are men afraid of women?

I truly find it mystifying because this does not seem to track along party lines or political philosophy -- though the wingnut misogynists seem to be much more open in attacking women, perhaps due to cultural traditions of self-expression nurtured in organizations like the KKK.

Also, it does not run consistently throughout the population of men I've known. Many are quite aware of their privilege and are quite the gentlemen, without being at all emasculated. (In fact, it's the emasculated men who seem to express the most vitriolic misogyny.)

Maybe some of these self-appointed experts on what is and isn't good feminism can turn their insightful gaze upon themselves, and explain to us poor hapless females the origins and justifications and reasons for the persistence of male privilege and institutional patriarchy.